#Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

[feministdragon]

In light of the bullshit being put out by the UN Women organization, insisting that men should be legally recognized as women, let’s look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and see how many of these human rights women actually possess.

Of course it has to be acknowledged this list of human rights is fundamentally a list of ideals rather than the reality on the ground, and often even men in the world don’t possess every one of these rights.   However, i’d like to point out exactly how few of these rights women have.   

On a side note, the UN website takes pains to point out that if Hansa Mehta of India hadn’t spoken up they wouldn’t have even thought to put ‘all human beings’ instead of men.  They say this to celebrate Hansa Mehta and to pat themselves on the back about their inclusivity, but isn’t that honestly shameful?  That they had to be told to include women??? more than HALF of HUMANITY, in a UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights?   

Anyways, let's get into this.

Article 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

So right out of the gate, in Article 1, we can see what women are stripped of: Women are not afforded equal dignity and rights, neither before the law or within culture, not in any country or place in the world.  

And then there’s this stupid ‘spirit of brotherhood’.  Yeah, ‘siblinghood’ sounds weird, but is there literally no other way to express the connections humanity owes each other than through male relationship?

Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

This is a fantasy for all human beings, but yes, at least we’re finally talking about all human beings.

Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

This is attainable by many men currently, but what woman in the world today has ‘security of person’?  What woman alive today does not live with the threat of rape?

Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

‘Unpaid labor’, or women’s constant, unacknowledged, unpaid labor in care of the men, children and elderly in their lives.  Is that not servitude, if not outright slavery?

Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

How many women in the western ‘free’ world are anally raped and choked during sex on a regular basis, without their permission?  How many women are forced into degrading clothing and practices of appearance?  How many women are belittled and dehumanized on a daily basis, in conversation, media, religious practice, culture?

Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Barely, barely anywhere in the world do we have legal recognition of ourselves as human beings. Not even in the US is women’s humanity defended in the law. Women are not explicitly named as being human beings in the US legal code, but rather are only inferred to be a subset to men.

Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

‘Effective remedy and national tribunal’ against rape when?  ‘Effective remedy and national tribunal’ against porn (filmed violence upon women) and prostitution (paid violence upon women) when?   ‘Effective remedy and national tribunal’ against child marriage, FGM etc when?

Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11 1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. 2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

These are still effectively fantasy in many parts of the world, for both men and women. 

Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

This is troublesome in a world where men’s honor is dependent upon the socially compliant behaviour of his female relatives, but also when will we begin to defend women from attacks upon her honour and reputation?

Article 13 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

In a world where some women cannot even leave their home, much less their own country without male guardianship, this is a farce.

Article 14 1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. 2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15 1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

This is also unattainable for many men.

Article 16 1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

1 and 2 obviously not attainable in much of the world.  But also, why in 3. is ‘family’ the natural and fundamental group unit of society, and not 'tribe'?  That is an ideological choice that enshrines the subservience of women to men, and strangely dissonant to the organization of our species in the 200,000 years of our existence.

Article 17 1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Again, this is one of those laws that is on the books in my country and many other countries but is culturally ignored and actively worked around, to the detriment of women’s financial independence.

Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Few women enjoy these luxuries, as they are expected to conform to their family’s and husband’s thoughts, beliefs, religion, ideology

Article 21 1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. 2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. 3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Look at the low, low numbers of women participating in government around the globe, and then look me in the eye and tell me women have these rights in practice.

Article 22 Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

yup, pretty much nobody has these

Article 23 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. 2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. 3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. 4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Women recieving equal pay for equal work when?  

also ‘himself and his family’?    ahhhhh you guys forgot women are people again, didn’t you

Article 24 Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Please see Article 4 above, also women’s 'rest and leisure' when?

Article 25 1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. 2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

We’re far away from both of these.  But also why are these in the same article? 

Article 26 1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. 2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. 3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

We’re also far from the attainment of this one, but also, isn’t there some fundamental conflict between 3 and the others?   Parents often choose to invest in their sons and ignore their daughters, the UN is fine with this?  Parents can have the right to discriminate among their children?

Article 27 1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Womens’ contributions to science and culture fully acknowledged when?  Women’s entitlement to the fruits of their intellectual labor actually protected when?

Article 28 Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29 1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. 3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30 Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Yeah, we’re also not here yet, but again, ‘his rights and freedoms’: you guys kinda forgot women are people here too.  

Yes, this document was written in 1948.  Yes, it’s hard to update the texts of documents like this without opening a whole can of worms.  Yes, even men aren't guaranteed a number of these rights. But this document clearly shows us where women’s rights are lacking, and UNWomen, you’ve got a whole lot of nerve to ignore your real tasks in favor of ‘empowering’ a group of men at the expense of what little rights and protections women even have.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[Eleanor Roosevelt with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, courtesy of the FDR Presidential Library & Museum, via Wikipedia Commons]

* * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

December 10, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

Seventy-five years ago today, on December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly announced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). 

At a time when the world was still reeling from the death and destruction of World War II, the Soviet Union was blockading Berlin, Italy and France were convulsed with communist-backed labor agitation, Arabs opposed the new state of Israel, communists and nationalists battled in China, and segregationists in the U.S. were forming their own political party to stop the government from protecting civil rights for Black Americans, the member countries of the United Nations nonetheless came together to adopt a landmark document: a common standard of fundamental rights for all human beings.

The United Nations itself was only three years old, having been formed in 1945 as a key part of an international order based on rules on which nations agreed, rather than the idea that might makes right, which had twice in just over twenty years brought wars that involved the globe. In early 1946 the United Nations Economic and Social Council organized a nine-person commission on human rights to set up the mission of a permanent Human Rights Commission. Unlike other U.N. commissions, though, the selection of its members would be based not on their national affiliations but on their personal merit.

President Harry S. Truman had appointed Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of former president Franklin Delano Roosevelt and much beloved defender of human rights in the United States, as a delegate to the United Nations. In turn, U.N. Secretary-General Trygve Lie from Norway put her on the commission to develop a plan for the formal human rights commission. That first commission, in turn, asked Roosevelt to take the chair.

“[T]he free peoples” and “all of the people liberated from slavery, put in you their confidence and their hope, so that everywhere the authority of these rights, respect of which is the essential condition of the dignity of the person, be respected,” a U.N. official told the commission at its first meeting on April 29, 1946. Their work would establish the United Nations as a centerpiece of the postwar rules-based international order.

The U.N. official noted that the commission must figure out how to define the violation of human rights not only internationally but also within a nation, and must suggest how to protect “the rights of man all over the world.” If a procedure for identifying and addressing violations “had existed a few years ago,” he said, “the human community would have been able to stop those who started the war at the moment when they were still weak and the world catastrophe would have been avoided.”

Drafted over the next two years, the final document began with a preamble explaining that a UDHR was necessary because “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,” and because “disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.” Because “the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,” the preamble said, “human rights should be protected by the rule of law.”

The thirty articles that followed established that “[a]ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights…without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status” and regardless “of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs.” 

Those rights included freedom from slavery, torture, degrading punishment, arbitrary arrest, exile, and “arbitrary interference with…privacy, family, home or correspondence, [and] attacks upon…honour and reputation.”

They included the right to equality before the law and to a fair trial, the right to travel both within a country and outside of it, the right to marry and to establish a family, the right to own property. 

They included the “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” “freedom of opinion and expression,” peaceful assembly, the right to participate in government, either “directly or through freely chosen representatives,” the right of equal access to public service. After all, the UDHR noted, the authority of government rests on the will of the people, “expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage.” 

They included the right to choose how and where to work, the right to equal pay for equal work, the right to unionize, and the right to fair pay that ensures “an existence worthy of human dignity.”

They included “the right to a standard of living adequate for…health and well-being…, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond [one’s] control.”

They included the right to free education that develops students fully and strengthens “respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Education “shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.”

They included the right to participate in art and science.

They included the right to live in the sort of society in which the rights and freedoms outlined in the UDHR could be realized. And, the document concluded, “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.” 

Although eight countries abstained from the UDHR—six countries from the Soviet bloc, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia—no country voted against it, making the vote unanimous. The declaration was not a treaty and was not legally binding; it was a declaration of principles. 

Since then, though, the UDHR has become the foundation of international human rights law. More than eighty international treaties and declarations, along with regional human rights conventions, domestic human rights bills, and constitutional provisions, make up a legally binding system to protect human rights. All of the members of the United Nations have ratified at least one of the major international human rights treaties, and four out of five have ratified four or more. 

The UDHR is a vital part of the rules-based order that restrains leaders from human rights abuses, giving victims a language and a set of principles to condemn mistreatment, language and principles that were unimaginable before 1948.  

But the UDHR remains aspirational. “As we look at the first 75 years of the UDHR,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said today, “we recognize what we’ve accomplished in this time, but also know that much work remains. Too often, authorities fail to protect or—worse—trample on human rights and fundamental freedoms, often in the name of security or to maintain their grip on power. Whether arresting and wrongfully detaining journalists and dissidents, restricting an individual’s freedom of religion or belief, or committing atrocities and acts of genocide, violations and abuses of human rights undermine progress made in support of the UDHR. In the face of these actions, we must press for greater human rights protection and promote accountability whenever we see violations or abuses of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

“On its 75th anniversary, the UDHR must continue to be our guiding light as we strive to create the world in which we want to live. Its message is as importa

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[aurianneor]

Conditional military assistance

Development cooperation and security assistance must be conditional on adherence to the universal humanist values of the Enlightenment.

Assistance must not be given to a dictatorial regime that oppresses its population. The United States' unconditional support for Israel, which practices an apartheid regime against the Palestinians, is not right. This assistance should have been accompanied by conditions in return. France's support for Sahel countries against Islamist guerrillas has not been accompanied by a demand for democracy and human development. US protection of Saudi Arabia against Iran and Iraq was done despite the fact that Saudi Arabia practises discrimination between men and women, torture, monarchical dictatorship, and so on. In Gabon, France supported the Bongo dynasty in power to enable the country to prosper, but in exchange no democratic or human progress was demanded. As a result, the Gabonese have turned their backs on France. In Mali, no human measures were demanded in exchange for military assistance; the Malians saw that it protected the dictator in power and turned to the Wagner militias. This is creating resentment among the population. It's a betrayal of the universal values of the UDHR.

In Taiwan, Ukraine or South Korea, Western protection has its requirements in terms of elections, human progress and the fight against corruption. These countries have made tremendous human progress: they are true democracies respecting human rights, with real elections, no persecution of women or LGBT+, they don't attack their neighbours, etc. So it's possible.

On the night of April 13 to 14, 2024, Iran launched a salvo of 300 missiles and drones on Israel with the aim of killing as many people as possible, without being able to discriminate between civilians and soldiers. This is a war crime. If Iran or its allies in the Middle East were to repeat such an attack, Israel would need military assistance from Western countries to defend its population. This assistance must be conditional: an end to the massacres in Gaza, an end to the violence in the occupied territories, and an end to the apartheid regime against the Palestinians.

If a regime is backed without adhering to these values, what will the consequences be? Unconditional support for Israel has also led to support for the Israeli government, which massacres Gazans in total impunity.

These conditions must be negotiated publicly. The violence must stop. When the West intervenes, there must be security, schools, health, development and prosperity. Otherwise, there will be great disappointment, and this will fuel people's turning away from the West.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Une aide militaire sous conditions: https://www.aurianneor.org/une-aide-sous-conditions/

When might is right: https://www.aurianneor.org/when-force-is-right/

European defense: https://www.aurianneor.org/european-defense/

The moral compass: https://www.aurianneor.org/the-moral-compass/

Immigration: https://www.aurianneor.org/immigration-2/

Freedom and coexistence: https://www.aurianneor.org/freedom-and-coexistence/

How can we win back trust?: https://www.aurianneor.org/how-can-we-win-back-trust/

Police and justice for the people: https://www.aurianneor.org/police-and-justice-for-the-people/

War and Peace at the UN: https://www.aurianneor.org/war-and-peace-at-the-un-in-1961-secretary-general/

The Red and the Yellow: https://www.aurianneor.org/the-red-and-the-yellow-red-scarves-against-yellow/

La preuve qu’on sait ne pas se battre. – Quand la force n’est pas légitime…: https://www.aurianneor.org/la-preuve-quon-sait-ne-pas-se-battre-quand-la/

Arrête de financer la haine: https://www.aurianneor.org/arrete-de-financer-la-haine/

Police, Armée: https://www.aurianneor.org/police-armee-manif-des-policiers-je-suis-gilet/

[iibislintu]

Breaking news: Trump convicted, still has the HUMAN RIGHT to vote

[scruntdupulousplus]

Sweating profusely, gesturing in silence, in the United Nations General Assembly Hall in front of the crowd, pointing exasperatedly at copies of the CPPCG and UDHR in my hands, in desperation for any of its constituents or the states they represent to have the conviction to follow their own stated principals for once or at all.

[omg-erika]

"Deeply concerned about increasing censorship."

by Dr.Harald Wiesendanger– Klartext What the mainstream media is hiding The human right to freedom of expression is in extreme danger. The “Westminster Declaration” urgently warns against this, signed by 137 personalities from science, culture, and the media. The right to freely express one’s own opinion and disseminate it unhindered is a cornerstone of democracy. But he falters. Governments,…

[troncelliti]

[womenindiplomacyday]

Who are the Women who shaped the universal declaration?

Drafted as "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations," the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) for the first time in human history spells out basic civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that all human beings — men and women alike — should enjoy. The Declaration is a milestone document in the history of human rights, drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world. Women were key contributors who played essential parts in shaping the document.

[humansolidarityday]

Panel Discussion on Sports, Human Solidarity and Universal Values.

'Born Free and Equal in Dignity and Rights': Sports, Human Solidarity and Universal Values for All Humanity (UDHR, Preamble, Article 1)

[maroonpaper]

International human rights law is often regarded as having its roots in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. It served as the model for numerous international human rights treaties that are now enforceable by law. It continues to serve as a source of inspiration for all of us, whether we are addressing injustices, resolving disputes, living in oppressed countries, or working to ensure that everyone can enjoy their human rights.

It reflects the widely held view that every individual is born free and endowed with the same respect for themselves and others, that these rights and freedoms are unalienable, and that these rights and freedoms apply to everyone equally. On December 10, 1948, the international community vowed to uphold justice and dignity for all people, regardless of their race, gender, nationality, or place of residence, as well as their color, religion, and language. Since then, December 10, the anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration, is celebrated annually as International Human Rights Day.

[alwaysbewoke]

This year December is the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This landmark document is suppose to entitle everyone inalienable rights as a human being - regardless of race, color, religion, sex, language, political or another opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The promise of dignity and equality in rights, has been under a sustained assault As the world faces challenges new and ongoing from exploding inequalities, racism, pandemics, conflicts, bankrupt global financial system, and climate change - the values, and rights in the UDHR are suppose to provide guideposts for our collective actions that do not leave anyone behind… We need to take action here in the US, by using our voices, and actions to support EVERYONE ‘s equal rights, not just some! Like Nelson Mandela said “To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity”

[lukadjo]

Human rights as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, related documents and common sense (for example, the UDHR article about marriage is outdated)

Examples of human rights include:

The right to live,

The right to a fair trail,

The right to bodily autonomy (someone cannot be owned as a slave),

The right to drinkable water,

The right to quality healthcare,

Etc.

[pellaaearien]

Hey there, fellow Canadians. 🍁

Do you want to do something that will actually make a difference online? Sign a petition!

I see petitions shared everywhere for every other issue! Here are two, right now, that you can sign and ask for updates on. They're both over 500 signatures which is the threshold to be tabled in the House of Commons. Add your voice and make sure these petitions get heard!

Make sure you read what you're signing! Both

Call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza

Call on the Canadian government to promote and defend human rights for ALL, Palestinian, Israeli, and Canadian alike

Call on Canada to hold Israel to the Geneva Convention and the UDHR, which both countries have ratified

Want more things you can do?

Contact your representative! Call their office and tell them you support a ceasefire in Gaza, and urge them to do the same. Call them after hours and leave a message if you don't want to talk to anyone in person. They count the number of calls they get for a given issue!

Don't know who your representative is?

It's super easy to find out! Stick your postal code in here and it'll link you straight to them!

While you're at it, contact Mélanie Joly! She's the current Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Here's a script if you want something to say:

As your constituent, I am calling on you to demand that Canada takes concrete steps to meet with all parties in calling for an immediate and complete ceasefire in Gaza. Canada is a signed member of both the Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and we must uphold those commitments.

It might feel hopeless. But if you want to get angry online, make sure you're doing it in the right direction. Now go forth and take action!

[tunneldweller]

tw: human rights violations, injuries, death

In early August 2021, asylum seekers started showing up in unusually large numbers in Poland near the border with Belarus. The border area is mostly covered with forests and bogs with farming villages past the woods. It's chock full of gorgeous landscapes, including Europe's largest remaining stretch of primeval forest west of Russia - the Białowieża Forest, a largely pristine ecosystem with so damn much biodiversity. Bison, lynx, three species of shrew, the last remaining European populations of various insects, tons of birds, fungi, mosses, you name it. Scientists and environmentalists love it [and forestry officials want to manage it, but that's a story for another day].

So: asylum seekers. Hungry, filthy, exhausted people from places like Afghanistan or Syria, which incidentally do not share a border with Poland. The locals, being decent folk, started feeding and helping these new arrivals, because that's just what you do when a tattered wraith shows up on your doorstep speaking some weirdass language and making the universal gesture for "I'm hungry". The Border Guard, being in violation of national laws as well as international conventions Poland had ratified, started trucking these asylum seekers back to the border and forcing them to cross back to Belarus, which is called a pushback. The Polish government, elected in part due to vicious anti-refugee propaganda, stated that the border must be reinforced to prevent the entry of "waves of unauthorized persons" participating in "hybrid warfare" and declared a state of emergency along the entire border. These migrants, they said, were extremely dangerous. Culturally foreign.

Why would seeking asylum be considered hybrid warfare? This links back to Europe's last remaining dictator west of Russia: Alaksandr Lukashenka, Supreme Ruler and Deathless Emperor of Belarus. His people allegedly came up with a clever racket: they started selling Belarusian visas in various poorer countries many people want to emigrate from and transporting migrants to the Polish border, claiming that this would be their gateway to a better life in the European Union.

So: asylum seekers. According to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. [Incidentally, Poland is a signatory of the UDHR.] Regardless of their country of origin, people crossing over from Belarus have the right to request asylum in Poland. And they do. Every time they get caught. In English, in Polish, in their native languages… Upon hearing a request for asylum the Border Guards are supposed to transport the migrants to a processing center where they would then wait for their application to be reviewed. But because these migrants are extremely dangerous, the Border Guards trash their belongings and dump them on the Belarusian side without shoes, without meds, phones, jackets, in any kind of weather, regardless of any injuries. And there are many. The terrain can be tricky to cross if you're not used to this type of boggy temperate forest. Or if you haven't had your meds in a while. Or if you're six. It won't be easy even if you're a - just like the current government's fearmongering election ads warned a few years ago - healthy young male with a cell phone.

When Belarusian Border Guards come across these ejected migrants, they force them back toward the Polish border. People keep ping-ponging between two walls of armed, uniformed enforcers who are getting more violent with every passing week. Some manage to get through and make it to Germany to request asylum in a law-abiding country. Others don't. 48 bodies were recovered along the border so far. NGO workers creep through the woods handing out hot soup and donated shoes to migrants; according to them, this is a fraction of the real number of casualties and some bodies will simply never be found. Volunteer medics get their tires slashed, aid workers get harassed, detained and charged. But the Border Guards don't kill, yet. Not directly. We're Europeans, after all! We're civilized!

It's a humanitarian crisis and an international shame. And the [abridged] wall of text above provides the necessary context to why I can't schadenfreudenly cackle over the latest government scandal, even though I love to point and laugh when that bunch steps on a rake.

See, earlier this month a Deputy Foreign Minister got fired for helping with a work visa racket. When the border crisis began to unfold, he'd already been ~facilitating procedures~ for like a year. This country needs workers; a significant chunk of the workforce up and emigrated, including many healthy young males, and the national birth rate is still failing even though the government did everything like the Catholic Church said. The deputy minister wouldn't even come up with a list of in-demand jobs; diplomatic missions are slammed with work after other changes he did implement, so he'd personally order consulates in some Asian and African countries to expedite certain applications. And all that time his party has been openly approving of unconstitutional pushback procedures targeting people from similarly "culturally foreign" [read: Muslim] countries. Incidentally, this far-right party is called Law and Justice. Hypocrisy is a virtue and cruelty is the point.

I wanted to end this with a punchy, quotable call for action, but my words ran out. The border crisis is still happening, even though it's clear by now that Poles and Poland can handle an influx of refugees far larger than the groups coming through Belarus. Summer is almost over and the coming months are likely to be cold and rainy. All I can do is signal boost and donate to aid groups.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

What’s Wrong With Blasphemy Laws?

The End Blasphemy Laws campaign holds that “blasphemy”  and “insult” to religion laws are wrong in several ways:

They violate the human right to freedom of expression

They protect religious beliefs and practices, institutions and leaders, from legitimate and often necessary criticism

They are intrinsically bad, subjective, inconsistent laws; there is no “right way” to use them

They legitimize vigilantism, mob violence, and persecution of minorities

All these areas are discussed in detail below.

Violating freedom of expression

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right for individuals. It is also vital for all societies, to enable a plurality of opinions. It is protected by all major international human rights instruments (including Article 19 of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICCPR)). The vast majority of countries are signed up to these conventions, and there is a strong claim even on the countries that are not signed up, namely that the right to speak freely is a basic moral right which states should uphold and protect.

Unlike freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief (Article 18 of the UDHR and ICCPR) which is absolute, freedom of expression can be limited under the international human rights framework. These limits vary from state to state but for example, they sometimes include libel and defamation against individuals, incitement to hatred, violence or discrimination against a person, a group or a community. (Such limits must respect strict legality and proportionality tests, as freedom of expression remains a human right, and its limitation must be the exception.) For this reason, some “blasphemy” laws may include — or be included in legislation which places — a ban on inciting hatred or violence. Such prohibitions against incitement to hatred or violence do not necessarily in themselves violate the right to freedom of expression.

However, by their nature laws against “blasphemy” and religious insult always go beyond a ban on incitement to hatred or violence. “Blasphemy” and religious insult laws always in practice prohibit, problematize or chill free expression when it comes to the asking of questions, the offering of criticism, and the expression of satire or ridicule, in relation religion.

These modes of discourse (questioning, criticising, satirising, ridiculing) belong firmly in the realm of freedom of expression. Therefore “blasphemy” and “insult to religion” laws, which criminalize such expression, contravene freedom of expression and are in violation of the international human rights framework.

While freedom of thought and belief, including religious belief, must be protected, it is equally important to guarantee an environment in which a critical discussion about religion can be held. There is no fundamental right not to be offended in one’s religious feelings. Religions per se do not hold rights. Churches and religious groups should be open to hearing criticism, just as every group in society. Intellectual and cultural advance rely on the free exchange of ideas.  Protecting any ideas from criticism does them no favour: it allows them to survive unchanged without being adapted and improved.

Protecting religion from insult and criticism

To some it may sound desirable to protect religion from “insult”. After all, insult may seen unnecessary and hurtful to the followers of a religion. However, in practice prohibiting “insult” means prohibiting all manner of enquiry and critique in relation to religion; as seen time and again in countries around the world, it is easy to claim “insult” in response to any critical discussion of religion. As one high profile example, Raif Badawi advocated secular reforms between religious and state authorities in Saudi Arabia; for this he was prosecuted for “insulting Islam” and sentenced to 10 years jail, a 10 year travel ban, and 1,000 lashes.

So criticism bleeds into “insult”. But why should criticism as such be protected free speech? — To some it may sound desirable to shield religion from any criticism, however politely it is offered!

But banning criticism not only means violating the freedom of expression of the critic, it means that criticism is deterred or prevented altogether on:

religious beliefs and practices or beliefs and practices that someone associates with religion, (for example, child “marriage”, slavery, genital mutilation, stoning and other corporal punishments that constitute torture, denial of citizenship, bans on “inter-religious” marriage, persecution of religion or belief minorities, discrimination against sexual minorities, and many other such practices, have all sometimes been defended — or their perpetrators have claimed immunity from investigation or exemption from human rights legislation — on the basis that they are ‘religious’ practices or that they are based on ‘religious’ beliefs)

religious institutions (for example it is widely recognised that taboos against appearing to question, criticise, or threaten the public perception or ‘greater good’ of the Catholic Church and other religious institutions deters people from reporting sexual abuse and other crimes)

religious leaders (such as clerics, who in some cases may escape charges of abuse or corruption because adherents of their religion, or others, feel unable to raise their voices against them)

Shielding religion from criticism cannot be regarded as a social good. Criticism which is false can be tested and met with legitimate counter-arguments, while criticism which is true should be heard for the sake of correcting errors. In some cases, criticism helps religious thinkers improve theology. In more substantive cases, criticism is essential to shedding light on immoral or unlawful practices carried out in the name of religion.

Intrinsically bad law

The violation of the right to freedom of expression is a matter of incompatibility with international human rights legislation, as well as most domestic human rights laws. But in addition, “blasphemy” and “insult to religion” laws also suffer from internal inconsistency and subjective applicability.

A law prohibiting “insult” or “offence” to religion, or for “hurting the sentiments” of religious persons, may itself be “insulting” or “offensive” or “hurtful” to religion or to religious persons, if it prevents them from expressing their religious views because others find their religion offensive.

A law against “blasphemy” depends on some standard of what counts as “blasphemy”, which assumes something like a correct, inviolable standard of religion which is being blasphemed against. But even when states try to found blasphemy laws on a single religious text, it is abundantly clear that different sectarian groups within a single religion interpret all mainstream scriptures in a variety of ways, with different groups deciding that some declarations or depictions are ‘blasphemous’ while others disagree, or find other declarations or depictions ‘blasphemous’.

It may be considered “blasphemous” by some Muslims to consider Jesus of Nazareth “the Son of God”, while some Christians may find it “blasphemous” to say that Jesus was merely a prophet or an ordinary human being. Many Islamic scholars consider deviations from their own sect (either Sunni or Shia) blasphemous, as well as sects such as Ahmadiyya which they do not recognise as “Islamic”, but which are frequently treated as “blasphemous” to Islam.

In some jurisdictions, such as Pakistan, it is frequently claimed by witnesses to alleged “blasphemy” cases that to repeat what the accused is supposed to have said or done would itself be “blasphemous” and therefore they are exempted from having to explain the accusation. Courts will therefore sometimes accept the testimony of a supposed witness to the blasphemy without hearing any of the details of the accusations.

Likewise, those who call for the reform or repeal of blasphemy laws, have sometimes been accused of “blasphemy” for questioning the blasphemy laws.

The confused and subjective nature of “blasphemy” and “insult to religion” laws makes them bad law. They are therefore hugely prone to abuse, being used to target a variety of supposed “blasphemy”, from actual criticism or satire of religion, to merely stating alternative religious views, stating atheism, or in some cases, the accusation is entirely malicious, based on rumours or planted evidence.

“Legitimizing” mob violence, vigilantism, and persecution of minorities

Countries which prosecute “blasphemy” and “insult to religion” tend to suffer disproportionately many incidents of:

intercommunal and mob violence (for example: the episodic burning of Christian properties and murder of Christians by mobs of Muslim men in Pakistan, such as this incident in 2009 that left 6 dead, which usually follow unlikely, malicious, unsourced rumours that someone has “desecrated” the Koran)

vigilantism against individuals (for example: violence against secularist Bangladeshi bloggers in the past few years, including the murder of Ahmed Rajib Haider and a potentially fatal machete attack on Asif Mohiuddin, both of which coincided with calls by Islamist groups to have “atheist bloggers” prosecuted for writing which supposedly insulted religion and criticised religious leaders)

the general silencing and persecution of minorities (for example: in several Islamic states, Ahmadiyya Muslims are often regarded, against their self-identity, as non-Muslims who are “blaspheming” Islam, while conversely Bahai’s are often regarded, against their selfi-identity, as wouldbe-Muslims who are “apostates” from Islam because they follow Baha’i teachings! Both groups are widely marginalised and persecuted in countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and numerous other states, and discrimination against them is bound up with claims of blasphemy, apostasy, or being kafir (infidels).

Criminalising “insult” to religion in the penal code, lends legitimacy to the social persecution of individuals and groups who are said to “offend” mainstream religious sensibilities, sometimes with their speech acts or writing, often just through their existence, or based on rumours spread with the intention of whipping up violence.

Moratoria and “dead letter” laws

The End Blasphemy Laws campaign recognises that in these cases, some laws may be considered for practical purposes to be unenforced, or unenforceable. Nevertheless even these “dead letter” laws remain of concern, and we want to see them repealed. There are several reasons for this:

even an apparently “dead letter” law can be reactivated. Some examples: In the weeks prior to the launch of the End Blasphemy Laws campaign (in January 2015) there were threats to file suits under the blasphemy laws in Ireland and in France in response to the publication of Charlie Hebdo. The “blasphemy” law the United Kingdom was declared by a peer in the House of Lords a “dead letter” law in 1949, but this status was unofficial and the law was used again; the last successful prosecution under the law came 28 years later, in 1977! In December 2014 the closely related death-for-apostasy law was reactivated after many years of disuse in Mauritania.

even unused or seemingly unenforceable laws can lend a legitimacy to people who argue that there is something inherently wrong with criticism of, or satire about, religion, or who advocate for the revival, use, or creation of new “blasphemy”-type laws

inactive, unused or less severe blasphemy laws in one country, still lend legitimacy to much more severe and actively-used blasphemy laws in other countries; for example the relatively recent creation of a blasphemy law in Ireland (despite there being no prosecutions under this law) has been used to justify the continued existence of Indonesia‘s blasphemy law (under which people have been sentenced to lengthy jail terms simply for posting about atheism on Facebook)

sometimes there is public desire, but no political will, to finally abolish “dead letter” laws; by listing and rating countries citing their blasphemy laws we hope to add to local pressure to repeal them.

==

It's surprising which countries still have blasphemy laws, especially given how irreligious some of them are. Australia, Germany and the UK still have them, New Zealand, France and Canada have only recently repealed them.